Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".
Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".
Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".
Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the US budget
for 2019.
I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".
It isn't "The" budget until it is approved, right? My guess is that there will be more than one edition before that happens.
Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".
Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about the
US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019 budget" or
"The US' 2019 budget".
It isn't "The" budget until it is approved, right? My
guess is that there will be more than one edition before
that happens.
Thankyou... I was hoping we'd get some input from the States. As a
Canadian I would call this document a draft or preliminary version of the 2019 >budget, and a news reporter might call it Trump's proposed budget. But I have >no idea whether its official title departs from established US custom.... :-)
President Trump unveiled his 2019 budget plan, here are
five takeaways that will affect the American people.
Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".
Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about
the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019
budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".
President Trump unveiled his 2019 budget plan, here are
five takeaways that will affect the American people.
Trump's 2019 budget book is called "An American budget".
Why "an" -- not "the"? After all, we know it is about
the US budget for 2019. I'd say "The American 2019
budget" or "The US' 2019 budget".
I think Trump implies that the budget is American in spirit.
The budget he proposes in an American one. In this sense,
"the" would be inappropriate because, obviously, it is not
the only possible American budget.
I think Trump implies that the budget is American in
spirit. The budget he proposes in an American one. In
this sense, "the" would be inappropriate because,
obviously, it is not the only possible American budget.
I also think so. I prone to think that it was an
accurate article title "Trump's 2019 budget". The book
was not about 2019 budget -- I think the correct title
(both for article and the book) could have been "How to
plan an American budget effectively". Indeed, "2019
year" was an invention of the journalist.
I should not be surprised if Trump condemned the budgets
of Obama as unamarican.
I prone to think that it was an accurate article title
"Trump's 2019 budget".
The book was not about 2019 budget -- I think the
correct title (both for article and the book) could have
been "How to plan an American budget effectively".
Indeed, "2019 year" was an invention of the journalist.
I prone to think that it was an accurate article title
"Trump's 2019 budget".
There is no verb "to prone" (unless you have just invented
it). I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...
The book was not about 2019 budget -- I think the
correct title (both for article and the book) could have
been "How to plan an American budget effectively".
I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)
Indeed, "2019 year" was an invention of the journalist.No, not at all. It is the proposed budget specifically for
2019.
I should not be surprised if Trump condemned the
budgets of Obama as unamarican.
* unamerican
I prone to think that it was an accurate article title
"Trump's 2019 budget".
Ah, "I am prone to think".
Although, recently, somebody told me here that "to be"
could be omitted when things are clear without it. ;-)
I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...
It is also correct, I think.
I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)
Have you seen the book photograph at the URL I provided?
(no "to be" again before "provided").
Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that
there was a car hanging from the underside of the
Granville Street Bridge." The repetition of "was" in
such cases would sound unnecessary at best to many
native speakers of English.
It is a perfectly valid grammarical construction
Although, recently, somebody told me here that "to be" could be
omitted when things are clear without it. ;-)
Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that there was a car hanging from the underside of the Granville Street Bridge." The
repetition of "was" in such cases would sound unnecessary at best
to many native speakers of English. One must be careful, however,
not to read too much into what one has been told about xxx and/or
(to) assume (that) the same applies to yyy.... :-)
I tend to think, or incline to the opiniton that...
It is also correct, I think.
While I see a typo in "opinion", I'm content with the grammar. ;-)
I fear you cannot call a budget project a book :-)
Have you seen the book photograph at the URL I provided? (no "to
be" again before "provided").
I'd be more inclined to call it a document, but in this part of the
world some proposed legislation could easily fill a book... [wry
grin].
Now, as for the grammar... "I provided" is correct. You could have
said "which I provided", but "which" is optional in such
situations. The only reason I can think of offhand for using "to
be" with a transitive verb such as "provide" is that you are using
Anton prefers errors instead of a spell checker. ;)
Sometimes, as in "He thought it rather strange that
there was a car hanging from the underside of the
Granville Street Bridge." The repetition of "was"
in such cases would sound unnecessary at best to many
native speakers of English.
I don't think it either an elision or an exception.
It is a perfectly valid grammarical construction|[typo alert!]
with verbs "consider", "think", "deem", &c.
Trowest not thou so?
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 513 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 14:53:33 |
| Calls: | 8,287 |
| Files: | 15,520 |
| Messages: | 928,579 |